workiva_list_organizations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no details are given about pagination, ordering, access scoping, or the shape of the response. This is minimal behavioral disclosure, similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, short sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it could be seen as slightly under-specified for context, the concision itself is strong.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This simple list tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details like whether all organizations are returned or only those accessible to the user, or any ordering/filtering notes. Given the complexity, the description is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description need not add parameter details because there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'organizations', clearly indicating the action and target. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_list_organization_users, but the resource name is distinct enough that the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no examples, and no context about the result set. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent without information on selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.